American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

People commit the “only game in town fallacy” when they insist that the lack of accessible alternative explanations forces acceptance of whatever hypothesis is on the table. This fallacy is familiar to philosophers because it often comes up in the context of arguments about the existence of God. However researchers in psychology often commit the fallacy too. Is it acceptable to commit the fallacy in the context of psychology hypotheses even if it is not in the context of God? I provide several possible answers to this question, and also discuss an augmented version of the fallacy.